Published AAO appeal decisions

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

Postdoctoral research scientist in pharmaceutical sciences claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met at initial stage. AAO upheld dismissal because evidence of peer review, citations, and articles did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field as required.

Pharmaceutical research scientist sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major significance and sustained national or international acclaim.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.

A postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher specializing in protein nanowires sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

Pharmaceutical microbiology production manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner did not meet initial evidence requirements; failed to establish three alternate criteria. Awards lacked documented recognition for field excellence; published material insufficient; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.

Quality assurance associate in pharmaceutical industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found two met. AAO dismissed, holding petitioner failed to meet three of ten required criteria and lacks the sustained acclaim and top-tier recognition required.

A director of program management in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification. He met three criteria: peer review, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A biomolecular researcher claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO proceeded to final merits analysis and found record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier achievement.

A chemistry, manufacturing, and controls regulatory affairs researcher met three evidentiary criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, on final merits the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her field. Limited press coverage and peer review activities did not demonstrate differentiation from peers. Appeal dismissed.

Biotechnologist in immunology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but dismissed appeal because totality of evidence failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

A senior director in project management for a pharmaceutical company met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO affirmed on final merits that his sustained international acclaim, conference presentations, R&D facility design, and field recognition demonstrate he is among the very top.